Push/Pull processing if Scanning Negative

[Michael R]

I have a feeling that just because there is a complete freedom in how B&W film can be exposed and developed , the said exposure and development becomes a universe on their own and some photographers tend to make a bigger deal out of it than it really is.

The elephant in the B&W room , especially ever since the advent of the Zone System. Assuming adequate exposure, from a tone reproduction perspective the rest of the negative "controls" are at best superfluous and potentially detrimental.

[jnantz]

The elephant in the B&W room , especially ever since the advent of the Zone System. Assuming adequate exposure, from a tone reproduction perspective the rest of the negative "controls" are at best superfluous and potentially detrimental.

shhhh.

[Corran]

Personally I've never met a negative that I could print that couldn't scan. I use an unusual scanner though, so maybe that is a component. So I expose/process with (silver gelatin) printing in mind. I'm talking about b&w specifically.

[Alan Klein]

SergeyT, it probably works similar to a digital camera alright. Since a CCD is essentially a capacitor that charges as photons hit it, the obvious sensitivity choice you have as an engineer is deciding how long you have the integration period be before you read out the signal. This process of reading out likely involves at least one stage of analog amplification, so there too is an opportunity to set gain. A third place might be present if ADC's are used with variable gain.

It follows from this that the longer you make the integration period and the higher you set the analog gain (or the ADC gain), the poorer the S/N ratio will become. Hence, density of the negative can be expected to influence the S/N of the digital signal. My experience as a user suggests that scanning through high-density areas results in increased noise. Just like a digital camera will create higher noise when set to a higher ISO.

You might quibble at what point this becomes objectionable; in my experience, any negative that's within a normal printing range, will scan more or less fine, perhaps with the exception of the densest highlights on negatives that would require a very low grade to print well. Hence, you might also argue about the validity of developing negatives for a particularly low gamma (that will become problematic when printing in the darkroom) to optimize the scanning process. I personally don't think that's necessary or helpful in any way, so I personally would never 'optimize' negatives for scanning. And also, personally, this is where the otherwise interesting discussion about how scanners work under the hood ceases to be very relevant for me

People who suggest a second scan at a slower speed to shoot through the shadows (Silverfast) don't make sense to me. One has to assume that the scanner manufacturer is setting the speed and intensity to match the ADC to prevent noise from becoming an issue. That's the normal, optimum speed. So those who slow down the scan just increase the noise in those areas. They might as well use one regular scan and then use the shadow slider when they edit. They'd get the same amount of details and the same amount of noise, maybe less.

[Alan Klein]

Yes , they can, just not as effectively as drum scanners do. And nobody will argue with the fact that the main advantage of drum scanners over CCD scanners in tone reproduction fidelity, which is due to the technology used in one vs the other. Nothing can compensate for the difference. But that is irrelevant to the topic of advantages / disadvantages of making less contrasty negatives for scanning.



I would put all CCD scanners into the same category when it comes to the ability to adjust scanning parameters . They all have a CCD sensor with its physical properties that translate into the limited ability to handle DR of the scanned source. And that CCD is likely to have a linear response , just like digital cameras have. But none of them is likely to exceed their capabilities while dealing with negative film.


Some do, some don't. Tango driven by NewColor hides a lot of hardware controls, if not most of them, from the operator and operator has to rely on whatever automation was embedded into the software by NewColor developers. Nevertheless, the combo delivers outstanding scans from any sort of film with ease.



That's an interesting dive-in into physics behind certain B&W film properties. And I'm glad that your discoveries help you to achieve desired results.

And BTW, in some way they also imply that it is impossible to make good darkroom prints as the required for darkroom printing densities lead to "abuse" of film.

I do not recall to ever advocating for abusing anything. And I'm not practicing photography for scientific research purposes. From my personal experience, the major effect on aesthetics of my prints have the composition that was chosen to photograph, the quality of light on the photographed scene and my ability to choose the correct camera settings for a given film. If these were great than I was extremely likely to get an excellent print. The rest is secondary and would fall together nicely if I simply followed my "standard" times and "formulas" for development and scanning. In other words, a properly exposed and normally developed negative film will cause no issues with scanning on any prosumer+ film scanner.

And since we are on this topic, I have a feeling that just because there is a complete freedom in how B&W film can be exposed and developed , the said exposure and development becomes a universe on their own and some photographers tend to make a bigger deal out of it than it really is. Let's compare that to color negative film. There is a single process that is called C-41 with particular chemistry, temps and timings for every step of the process . And there are few variations to it for + and - development, which are also particular and documented. In other words, it is a standard that guarantees and actually delivers consistent and predictable results. Does it make color photography inferior compared to B&W? What about color positive and E-6 process - practically no room to wiggle and nevertheless capable of delivering outstanding results. Yes, I would be concerned with what scanner to choose to get the best out of E-6 film but both normally exposed and developed C-41 or B&W films should be a no brainer for any film scanner's hardware (no need to bother with optimizing the densities). Tone reproduction fidelity of drum vs CCD is clear but not relevant to this topic.

I did a comparison between an Epson V850 flatbed and a Howtek 8000 drum scanner using Tmax 100 BW film. The results were comparatively favorable. What do you think?
https://www.largeformatphotography.i...ghlight=howtek

[Michael R]

shhhh.

Uh oh

[jnantz]

I did a comparison between an Epson V850 flatbed and a Howtek 8000 drum scanner using Tmax 100 BW film. The results were comparatively favorable. What do you think?
https://www.largeformatphotography.i...ghlight=howtek

I did a comparison between my epson 4870 scanner ( cost hundreds ) and my epson xp640 (cost $65 )
and the $65 scanner was as good as the expensive one. doesn't matter to me about how the scanner works or why its just a camera/ and I just use it as or not as intended.

Uh oh

yup

[Bruce Watson]

Bruce, I scan with a V850 (V600 before). I only set the levels. I shoot film at box speed and the lab develops my film, normal. I don't print much but when I do, from the scan, will I be missing something or doing something wrong?

Almost certainly not. This is more or less the way the scanner/software is designed to be used.

If you have a sheet of film that you can easily print in the darkroom, it's usually easy to scan also. The only time you might want to optimize a sheet of film for scanning is when you'll never print that film in the darkroom.

[Bernice Loui]

Old habits don't die.. 35mm to 5x7 sheet film is made in the same way for decades, to be optically printed via silver gelatin on fiber based graded paper typically grade 2 or 3. This means fitting the negative to be made to meet these requirements.

Scans are done using an old Epson 4990 on a old windows Thinkpad with the old Epson software... None of these images are processed via modern image software.. It is the basic Apple as delivered image software used for these image files.. Identical for digital camera images. Scanned images are made to be shared via digital data file size limited. These digitized images will never be made into prints, unless the images are "pirated". These negatives are easy to scan, usually direct with little to no "slider adjustments".. Little to no real concern for the "best quality" scans as there is no point or reason given how these images will be used. It is why images posted are done using the forum image software and why they look the way they do.. Posting "good" digital images are too much hassle and work for what is needs are.

It really comes down to what the image goals are. Knowing the goal for the negatives are optical printing does drive the entire negative making process.


Bernice

[SergeyT]

I did a comparison between an Epson V850 flatbed and a Howtek 8000 drum scanner using Tmax 100 BW film. The results were comparatively favorable. What do you think?
https://www.largeformatphotography.i...ghlight=howtek

I can not see the scans.
A good example to demonstrate a difference between a drum scanner tone reproduction capabilities and a flatbed one would be to scan the rebate area (borders with the holes) on 135 Velvia or Provia at 2000-3000 dpi then apply an aggressive tone curve to open up the shadows (increase the value of dark tones) without moving the back point up in value. How much that difference will make to the final image is hard to predict as there is too many factors contributing to how the image will look (size, content, editing, printing, displaying).
In resolution department drum and flatbeds will likely be even up to what is specified as max optical for each.
Naturally, details in the scans from a flatbed will look less "sharp" than those from a drum scanner . Another way to say it - scans from flatbeds look softer while the ones from drums look crisper. That difference is easily compensated for by applying adequate amount of sharpening in post. Nothing wrong with doing that mindfully.
Depending on the image a non-sharpened one from a flatbed could look "better" (smoother, softer) than the one from a drum. Majority of aspects is relative and depends on many things other than scanner's tech.
I would not be too concerned about those differences unless there are specific criteria to meet. And no scanner unlikely to save a poorly executed (captured / developed) image.